Posted on 01/08/2007 2:16:07 PM PST by Sopater
INTRODUCTION:
For the past few years there has been a relatively public battle between Evolution (Darwinism) and Intelligent Design (ID). In courtrooms, classrooms and even at the polls, ID has been mostly losing this battle. Meanwhile, with the completion of the human genome project and the sequencing of many other species, scientific discoveries are upending many long-held assumptions of the pro-evolution community, but they don’t seem to realize it yet. The purpose of this article is to illuminate some of these discoveries and give hope to the ID community that steady, patient defense of our position will eventually win the war.
[SNIP]
CONCLUSION:
What can we conclude from the evidence presented in this essay:
(Excerpt) Read more at geocities.com ...
"We ID people are too dumb to understand the complexities of life, so, therefore, some ill-defined creature created life."
Actually that is closer to the truth than you think, but not in a negative way. Some of us understand our limitations and, until evidence presents itself to prove otherwise, the idea that DNA was created by Someone is the most logical conclusion. There is NO evidence to support that it just accidentally happened.
"You simply assume that the 'natural' cause is unknown and you are back in business. "
I can't figure out if you are trying to use sarcasm to make fun of evolutionists or if you are serious. I guess it depends on your stand on this.
"What actually happens is an appeal to undiscovered natural effects..."
What if they are not there?
No, you are misunderstanding the issue. You claim that "science *requires* that all has happened by natural causes." Does all that happened have a natural cause? If the answer is "no" science can't require that.
I think you are confusing science with reality. Science places strict natural limits on acceptable definitions of reality (theories) in that they must not appeal to effects that are not natural. This is required even when no known natural cause exists. This is how science places strict limits on reason.
How does science *prove* that an unknown natural cause does not exist? It can't. All it can say is that a natural cause has not been discovered yet continue to assume that one does exist.
Abiogenesis and the Big Bang are examples of 'scientific' theories with no known natural cause. That doesn't stop them from being 'scientific' or 'natural' as restricted by the defined limits of science.
"I can't figure out if you are trying to use sarcasm to make fun of evolutionists or if you are serious. I guess it depends on your stand on this."
This highlights another problem.
The truth of a statement apparently depends on the position of the person making it.
Let me know if you are aware of any theories that do not rely on unknown natural causes that are nevertheless assumed to exist.
Do what we scientists do...withhold judgment until you know some facts. No need to pick an anthropomorphic "being," any more than to say it was an "accident" (as you so inaccurately describe it).
>>The truth of a statement apparently depends on the position of the person making it<<
That is very true in a world where sarcasm exists. But it is not a matter of "truth" really, it is a matter of discerning what a person is really saying.
e.g., if someone says, "yeah, bush is the best president in history" on DU, one can assume they mean the opposite.
>>The truth of a statement apparently depends on the position of the person making it<<
That is very true in a world where sarcasm exists. But it is not a matter of "truth" really, it is a matter of discerning what a person is really saying.
e.g., if someone says, "yeah, bush is the best president in history" on DU, one can assume they mean the opposite.
>>Do what we scientists do...withhold judgment until you know some facts.<<
A. I do.
B. Many "scientists" do not.
I know more facts than you think. ;)
>>Let me know if you are aware of any theories that do not rely on unknown natural causes that are nevertheless assumed to exist.<<
Gravity.
Although it is only an assumption that it is "natural". I have read of the argument that it is a much stronger force "leaking" from another dimension.
On A totally different subject, some call that other dimension "heaven".
Well, then, there are no facts which lead to a conclusion that some ill-defined creature created DNA.
This statement seems to be floating out there without means of support.
You were the one that said "Actually, science *requires* that all has happened by natural causes."
I was pointing out that science says no such thing. True science limits itself to the natural. It does not attempt to explain "all".
While I attach no particular importance to the genome project, neither do I see one such as yourself, posessing no knowledge whatsoever on the subject, having the authority to declare it junk science. Wishful thinking from an empty evolutionism rider?
With all respect, Sir or Madam as case may be, I submit yours as cited is a Rather brash assumption, on its face at the very most charitable an assertion putting into question its author's credibility. I challenge you to demonstrate the basis of knowledge by which you assay to presume anything pertaining to my CV, bona fides, credentials,accredidations, credentials, and/or other qualifications, academic or professional, philosophic or theologic.
I submit that should you fail to provide and validate said basis of knowledge, your assertion stands impeached. What that may say of your credibility and/or authority overall will be self evident.
Thanking you in advance for your expected gracious cooperation in this matter, I await your soonest convenient substantive, topically responsive reply.
PS: You misspelled "possessing"
"Well, then, there are no facts which lead to a conclusion that some ill-defined creature created DNA."
Except for the dna itself.
Gravity.
I think you are confused between the fact that gravity exists and the theory that explains it. In the context I was referencing, the theory predicts unobserved 'gravitons' which supports the 'unknown natural cause' that I noted above.
Similarly, the fact that the universe exists does not mean that unknown natural causes aren't assumed to exist to explain it.
And the fact that life exists does not mean that unknown natural causes aren't assumed to explain it.
"I was pointing out that science says no such thing. True science limits itself to the natural. It does not attempt to explain "all"."
Science does require that all has happened by natural causes. In order for you to be right, you would need to be able to point to a scientific theory that incorporate a supernatural cause. You can't do that because it doesn't exist.
Now you can quibble over what 'true science' is or is not, but the fact remains that there are no scientific theories that incorporate a supernatural cause; ergo science *requires* a natural cause and must infer unobserved natural causes when natural causes remain identified.
Actually, all I'd have to do is point to a theory that claims a natural cause for all then ask for the testable means in proving the claim.
Any theory that all has happened by natural cause is not a scientific one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.